The Facility consists of the Cowden 47H well, a gas production unit for the 47H well, and four 21 0-barrel storage tanks equipped with Enardo thief hatches. According to information provided by Respondent, three of the tanks stored natural gas condensate and one stored water/brine. Natural gas condensate is a flammable mixture (CAS No. 00-11-11). According to information obtained from Respondent, natural gas liquid condensate from the Facility includes hexane, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene and benzene. According to the observations of the inspectors, on the day of the inspection, the total amount of condensate in the three storage tanks designated as condensate totaled 63 barrels (17,848 pounds).
Complainant determined, based on its review of information obtained from Respondent pertaining to the Facility, that Respondent failed to satisfy the requirements of the General Duty Clause with respect to the storage and handling of its extremely hazardous substances. Respondent failed to design and maintain a safe facility because the design was not as protective as industry codes and standards. Specifically, Respondent failed to comply with the General Duty Clause as follows:
- Respondent failed to provide emergency venting in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 30, Section 22.7.1.1, and American Petroleum Institute (API) 12F, Section 6.2 or equivalent protections. The Facility had three 210-barrel condensate tanks co-located with two other tanks owned and operated by Atlas within an earthen berm. At the inspection, EPA observed that the condensate tanks had in-breathing/out-breathing 8-inch thief hatches and other vent piping but lacked pressure-relieving devices such as emergency vents designed for fire exposure.
- Respondent failed to maintain venting devices on tanks storing Class IA liquids (i.e., condensate) in the normally-closed position when venting under pressure or vacuum conditions, in accordance with NFPA 30, Section 21.4.3.6, and failed to maintain the thief hatches in accordance with manufacturer’s maintenance instructions.
- Inspectors observed that the 2-inch blowdown line connected to the tank vent line was locked in the open position, venting to the atmosphere.
- Enardo Model660 Spring Loaded Hatch Installation and Maintenance Instructions, Section II, states: “Scheduled maintenance should be performed every 3 months and more frequently in corrosive or dusty atmospheres. Normal maintenance requires the pressure gaskets and vacuum gaskets to be inspected. Under average operating conditions the pressure and vacuum gaskets should be replaced once a year …. If the hatch is continually relieving, the user should be alerted that there is a problem; at that time, a close inspection should be made to determine the cause.” Inspectors observed that all top connector gaskets were cracked, tom or separated from the joint flange. Inspectors observed that the condensate tank thief hatches were leaking on all tanks, which the inspectors measured at 13,000 parts per million (ppm) at the vent piping at Tank 47-1.
- Respondent failed to provide documentation which designates the hazardous classification areas around the tanks and process equipment, in accordance with NFP A 70, Section 500.4(a).
On March 8, 2013, Respondent submitted its response to EPA correspondence dated January 11, 2013. This response reiterated that the well at the Site has been shut in (no longer in operation) since May 18, 2011 and the tanks were emptied and all associated valves were closed on June 8, 2012. Further, the March 8, 2013 correspondence reported that, on June 20,2012, contractors cleaned and flushed all four tanks, the Gas Processing Unit (“GPU”) and associated piping. On February 15, 2013, contractors disconnected and installed blind flanges or plugs on the lines from the wellhead to the GPU and from the GPU to the tanks and to the sales line.
In full and final settlement and resolution of all allegations referenced in the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and in full satisfaction of all civil penalty claims pursuant thereto, for the sole purpose of this proceeding, Respondent consents to the assessment of a civil penalty for the violation of Section 112(r)(l) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. ยง 7412(r)(l), as set forth above, in the amount of$6,866.00.
CLICK HERE for agreement